Hugh Morris

The prospect rankings of the 3 prospects acquired add up to 30. If they'd reduced that to just 1 prospect, he'd have been #10. C'mon. It's just math. For actual content: FG was pretty positive in their off/earlyseason prospect list on Jhoan specifically... Duran’s delivery is silky smooth and he generates big heat, sitting 93-96 and touching 99. His strike-throwing ability and secondary stuff were both better when I saw him this spring, with the slider and changeup each flashing plus. Duran has some maturity issues — or at least he did last year — but if he were a college righty with this stuff he’d probably go somewhere in the first round.

Any chance you're available to teach Murphy framing? Because this is a masterpiece. The Yankees traded a "MiLB" journeyman (who was all of 25, and spent his career with the Yankees) who'd just put up a 3.78 ERA (and 3.73 FIP) with 9.3 K/9 rookie season (over 15 starts) for Didi. TR traded half a season of Francisco Liriano (5.31 ERA, 4.51 FIP), a pitcher so miserable that evidently nobody besides Chicago wanted him (unless Ryan's goal was to trade him in-division to help crater their postseason efforts. In which case, that should be extra points) in exchange for Escobar. Liriano's value was so high at the time, Pittsburgh managed to sign him in the offseason on a 12m/2yr deal (that whole contract was a mess and pre-accident figures aren't readily available). "Proven near-ace" indeed. Also Fuld/Milone sure looks pretty good, especially when factoring in the cost of acquiring Fuld in the first place. Okay. Jokin? You're better than this. I don't always agree with your posting, but you're prolific and intelligent, and typically a delight to read. There will never be publicly available evidence (short of a Cardinalsesque hack) to be provided. I have to assume you're aware of that. Insisting upon it is cheap rhetorical hackery and below your usual standards. I'm aware jsteve's been taking (thankfully) redacted shots at you in the thread. Continue to be better than that. Did Terry Ryan have serious conversations with any other teams about Aaron Hicks? None of us (unless Jack Goin is still dropping in) will ever know that answer. Is there any possibility of discussion on this question that will make someone change their mind? I can't see a path to that. Which makes any further discussion (for either side) tedious. A quick note on Fangraphs Catcher WAR: Framing is not factored into Fangraphs Catcher WAR (per: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/defense/catcher-defense/). Per BaseballProspectus, Murphy was one of the top pitch framers during his time in AA/AAA.

Any particular reasoning behind this? I'm a big Turner guy, and like Garver as well.... but Garver is the same age as Murphy and just put up a worse line in A Ball. Turner's a year younger and put up a worse line in AA ball. If it's defense, Murphy's CS% in AA was better than Turner (or Garver's at A+) and Prospectus had him as the 5th best AAA catcher for pitchframing in 2014.

Regarding your first point-Neither competitive team traded for a player who was a starter for the 2015 Season. Look, I'm sure if the Twins had Brian McCann, they wouldn't have traded Hicks in order to get Murphy. However, they have Kurt Suzuki. He is... not Brian McCann. Like the Yankees, I'd also rather have McCann than Murphy. Regarding the second point- what mentality that led to the Kyle Loshe trade do you believe should be removed? Should Molitor paint a target on his office door and instruct players to go at it? That was an obvious flashpoint, at least. What was Garza's conflict that led the Twins to trade him-for the #3 prospect in the majors who just finished his rookie year? It's just too bad they traded for Delmon. There was nothing that indicated he might have had personality issues before the Twins acquired him. Just ask minor league umpires. What could Garza have done or demonstrated that would have been worse than throwing your bat at an umpire? Past those qualms, and more generally towards what I've seen posted in the thread- a couple of things I take issue on. 1: The sentiment that the Twins made the trade relying only on Murphy's Triple Slash Line. I want to assume everyone questioning if the Twins knew about his BABIP was kidding. For anyone who wasn't-is there anything that TR's regime could do to convince you that they are aware of the most elementary 'fancy stats'? I'm genuinely curious what it would take. 2: I see Dave Cameron's article has been linked here. It's pretty harsh. I hope this doesn't impact his opinion of the Twins organization. Rumor has it he was consider them as highly as #6org. To avoid this post being only metadiscussion and snark: It appears Hicks may have turned a corner this year as far as his approach and his swing. That's good to see. On the other hand, pitchers might attack him differently since he was an entirely different batter. Via Brooksbaseball: 2014: 19 of the 227 first pitches he saw in play (8%). He hit .210 on the ones he put in play.2015: 51 of his 377 PAs ended on the first pitch (13%). He hit .333Hicks' batting average was 14 hits better in 2015 than it was in 2014. The changes on first pitch (both putting the ball in play, and BABIP on first pitches) account for 11 hits... Hicks' changes might lead to continued success. Or he'll have to adjust again to account for the league making the easiest strategy adjustment possible pitchers ("First pitch is no longer a freebie"). As a rule, I dislike giving up on young toolsy OFs who've shown any promise at the MLB level. I'd also liked to have gotten someone more glamorous than Murphy. On the other hand, Turner and Garver don't appear to be solutions in the near future and I struggle to think of plausibly available backup catchers I'd be excited about. In a market where teams are allegedly offering AJ more than $3m, free agency doesn't appeal much. An unexplored question: This appears to open up the possibility of Arcia on the roster in 2016. Moving forward, would you rather have Murphy+Arcia or Hicks+[Whatever you could trade Arcia for]? Is there a wrong answer to this question?

I really hope we get some names quickly, because otherwise this is headed for a repeat of the Willingham situation where the Twins either: A: Refuse to trade a average-to-good player coming off of a career year where regression seems inevitable because the front office believes that they know better than everyone else or B: Can't find anyone offering them worthwhile value for an average-to-good player coming off of a career year where regression seems inevitable because as it turns out, other GMs can notice that too. (you know, depending on your view of the front office) But who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and they'll trade him. Then we can get the JJ Hardy situation again where a player is traded to one of the few teams willing to offer anything and spend years kvetching about the minuscule return. There is no idiot in the room with GMs. If there was, this deal would have been made many times over. Nobody is giving up a player who'd reach our top 10 in exchange for Escobar+Nolasco (and Swarzak, err... who is the org-filler guy we're throwing in hypothetical trades now?). Barring a cash-strapped contender having a pair of injuries, nobody is giving someone who'd crack our top 10 for Escobar+Gibson. Ideally? Escobar+Hicks(or Shafer) might get us back a defensively sound CF who can hit some leadoff too. But that player will have his own warts.

Yeah. I get where you're coming from but citing Pinto's career OPS is a bit like doing the same for Parmelee midway through 2012. Some guys especially, it seems of late, fastball mashers tend to do very well in September callups. Even better when you're unheralded or have skipped AA. You've got talent with the bat and you're going against somewhat weaker opposition than you'd face in April pitchers are getting callups too!. On top of that, there very likely isn't a book on you yet-and few people know enough to care. Pinto put himself on the map with a very strong September... and then fell off the map in April. It's possible that it's mere coincidence that was after there was more time to scout and prepare for him-but my vote goes the other way. It's one of the reasons I'm nervous about Vargas. Everyone has different philosophies, of course. But for me? I put only a bit more stock in the performance of September callups than I do in Spring Training for players-on-the-cusp.

Wasn't going to dive in but might as well post. It's not like I had plans beyond binging House of Cards tonight anyways. Saw the article when it was posted on ESPN. Knew the TD topic would be robust because how could it not be? Between Front Office Critics and Defenders (Haters and Lapdogs? I'm all out of invective tonight), the SABR-minded, the Scouting-Focused and the UZR-Truthers, the only way that you could have drenched the last embers of the Hot Stove here with more gasoline is including something about Mauer. I've got major issues with a few portions of the article (more below)-as well as how it's been used as a cudgel or jumping off point to make assertions that aren't supported by the thin premise of the rankings to begin with. As always, the above functions as a TL;DR, and I take no offense because this got needlessly wordy in a hurry. Which may as well be my sig. Though we're rarely in agreement jokin (not that you'd be aware, given how rarely I drop my lurker status), I do respect your passion for the club, your desire to see them improve and your knowledge of the sport. I also believe you when you say you think that ESPN's analysts identified the Twins correctly. I'm wondering if that's not the problem for you (and others) as it comes to these rankings. You've been given a piece of information that validates your preconceived notion. I imagine you'd quickly find a few flaws to identify in the methodology (even with the limited insight given) if the Twins had been placed in Tier 2 instead. I don't post to pick on you specifically, it just helps to have an exact quote as opposed to engaging in strawman-prone paraphrasing. A tremendous chunk of their ranking is based solely on reputation-which tends to lag behind reality (#6org, anyone?). I'd be willing to wager there's a strong positive correlation between the media-friendliness of an organization's Quant department and their ranking on this list. While that won't prove causation-it does suggest a relationship and the narrative explanation sure makes sense. The problem is-there's no strategic benefit to discussing your process. Why would you show your hand, tip your pitches, [insert other metaphor here]? This is compounded when the rankings are (at minimum) compiled by a gentleman who spent eight years in the league and has been out for the last three. Re-read the skeptics section. How many of those blurbs could be summed up by "[i/our sources] don't really know these guys. But before they were hired, this team was thought of as weak in analytics. So they're skeptics." Allow me to again say a quick prayer of thanks that I don't work in an industry where my value is judged by the school I attend(ed) and the number of press releases written about me. To dive a little deeper into my objections, the Twins hired a coach in 2014 to take charge of a variety of facets-one of which was defensive positioning. Their usage of shifts went up fivefold, to the top half of the league. This staffer was then promoted to Manager. In the world of this article, that's balanced by "but they don't strike many guys out". Even by the lowered standards of SouthParkian "The Truth is in the Middle" balance from what portrays itself as 'news' (or worse, 'sports news') today, that's flagrantly disregarding actual data related to the ranking's purpose (current usage of analytics) for a vague assessment of historical reputation that's impacted by a dozen variables. I'm SABRinclined... but I don't recall where "dismiss or underweight actual evidence when compared to information reflecting multiple confounding factors that backs up my biases" is considered methodologically sound. [to disclaim-I'm not casting aspersions on jokin or those who agree with the rankings with the lines above-the vitriol is solely at the ESPN staffers. I am merely somewhat disappointed that it's being used in cudgely fashion given its vapidity] Any insight on how much of his job, at the time of the interview, was regarding player evaluation and selection? It is (and was) a clearly outdated sentiment, but it might help knowing if this the equivalent of mocking the drivetrain designer at Chevy for not being up to speed on the latest research with aerodynamics. The recent pieces on Bill Smith's role in the new complex in FL certainly suggest there are people listed in the Baseball department who have no impact on the onfield product. Might be a productive question for Jack Goin next time he pokes his head in-or the next time Dave's willing to talk to someone. Regarding the second point-it's a sentiment similar to the one I object to in jokin's post. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious.... how low have you set the bar for plausibility when it comes to the FO? Would you expect an article about the Twins being at the forefront of incorporating phrenology to be in the Onion (RIP print edition) or on C1 of the Star Tribune? (and really, I just welcome any excuse to type out phrenology. Unfortunate such an entertaining word has such an ugly history-especially in this country) Certainly "The Twins are behind the leaders" is a defensible (and likely correct) opinion-but when that assumption is used to fill in colossal information gaps rather than a benefit of the doubt and/or more neutral analysis... well, if it builds for a decade... you've got a "Longtime Firsttime" on KFAN's afternoon drivetime(or possibly a contributor to to its 9am counterpart? ) The forum tells me i'm over my quotelimit. Which is awfully passive-aggressive as a way to tell me to shut up! The following refers to Thrylos' post immediately above my own. As of when I started writing this. It might be three pages away by now. Wanted to end this on a happy note-as Thrylos drives the nail on my point home . That's more the sort of attitude I was hoping to see from the folks at TD who are on the more apathy/antipathy side of the scale with the front office. Mind, with the author's experience I'm more confident than Thrylos that he knows better, but it's the sort of fluff-over-substance piece that ESPN's been cranking out on 538 ever since they snagged Silver. If only he'd have stayed at the Times and ESPN had thrown their cash at Klein. We'd be spared Vox and still have a wonky 538! Regarding the last point-I understand the concern about Perkins (or anyone) taking a deeply quant role without a narrowly targeted advanced degree. However-based on my read of it, it sounds like Glen's talking more about serving as ambassador/translator for Jack's crew to the Clubhouse. That seems like a job that's more in line with Glen's demonstrated functional understanding of (and passion for) the AdvStats than it does one that requires intimacy with the theoretical underpinnings of modelling the league's new version of SportsVU.

This is dragging something back from a day ago, but I see similar sentiments popping up on TD and elsewhere. The concept that the top executive not being a baseball man means the team doesn't care about winning is... you can take your pick of ill-informed or bleeding edge. I'm fine either way. 2014 Playoff Teams: Kansas City: Not a baseball man (also the owner. Beneath the CEO is president, who is related to the owner) Oakland: Not a baseball man (limited partnership with Owners, came in as CFO) Giants: Not a baseball man (also part of the ownership group. Started in sports broadcasting) Detroit Tigers: We found one! Dombo is GM/CEO/President. The next highest executive is a.... hockey scout? Pirates: Lawyer whose only prior baseball experience was working in the commissioner's office. I suppose it's possible that I've misread your meaning, but I don't believe that would qualify as baseball man any more than St Peter's rise through the ranks. Angels: Neither of the top figures are baseball men. It's also a bit of a hairy situation. Sales and Marketing, for the current acting top executive. Orioles: Owner (next position down, also related to the owner) Cardinals: Son of the owner. Got his start in Merchandising. Dodgers: Former Basketball General Manager. Also part owner Washington Nationals: Highest ranking Exec appears to be COO Alan Gottlieb (no, to my surprise, not that one). Can find no indication he has any background in Baseball Operations or Player Personnel. So of our 10 2014 playoff teams, only one has a "Baseball Man" as the top executive. In fact, research suggests that you are rather fortunate the Pohalds haven't given themselves a CEO/President title. Let's look though, at some of the other teams that the Twins are frequently compared to or bound to be measured against Houston: Former MLB pitcher. Also son of part owner Nolan Ryan. Would wager the latter has more to do with his position than the former. Chicago Cubs: Not a Baseball Man. Chicago White Sox: Not a Baseball Man. Chairman and Vice Chair are owners. Next down is Senior Executive Vice President (putting him about Baseball Man Kenny Williams). Howard Pizer was a colleague of the ownership team brought aboard to run the business side of things. Tampa: Currently, not a baseball man. Previously, was Baseball Man Andrew Friedman. If I were to look through this data for patterns, I'd comment that the bulk of teams (and bulk of successful franchises) do not have "Baseball Men" as the top executives. I'd also point out that the two franchises who do have/have had Baseball Men in that role have seen some eyebrow raising moves made due to lack of overall revenues or dramatically higher expenses than receipts-Whether it's Dombo trading Fister for spare parts or trading Prince and a princely (heh) sum of money to Texas for Kinsler... or Silverman moving Price for what certainly appears like an underwhelming return and also having to deal James Shields early. I'd have made the Shields deal as well, but shopping him appears to have been primarily financially motivated. Look, I enjoy most of your posting even when I disagree with you, but I'm not certain what you think St Peter's role in the organization is where Baseball Man should be the primary qualification. It certainly doesn't appear to function that way around the bulk of the rest of the league.

One of the more enjoyable "The roster isn't Gardy's fault!" posts I've read. As to the Gardy/Ryan/Both? Conversation, I think TR's judged by more than just the record on the field, whereas Gardy can't point towards Cedar Rapids' success during his performance review. It's important to look at what Ryan inherited (readers can read that as "reclaimed" if it means we can skip the "How much power did Bill Smith really have?" conversation) Minor Leagues: A farm system ranked 22nd by BP that was highlighted by a Sano who was considered dubious in position and potentailly makeup, Rosario and Joe Benson. The top pitcher in the system was Alex Wimmers-and even he was a worse prospect than a thoroughly unimpressive Levi Michael. Of all the players in AAA the year prior, only Trevor Plouffe put up a statline that would make someone take notice-and he'd already moved up to the next level. Were it not for Sano, this system may have ranked 30th and that could have been generous. Major Leagues: Injuries and poor performance had sapped Mauer, Morneau, Liriano, Young and Baker, the only well-performing veterans who hadn't left in FA of their Value. Even Span was low enough that Bowden reporting "sources" suggesting Storen and Lomardozzi (the Nats' version of "Duensing and Swarzak!") wasn't laughed out of the room when he posted it for ESPN. The only "rookie" in 2011 who seemed like he could be a part of the future was the September Sample Sizing Parm. Plouffe was old for his age (#Yogi) and looked like he might end up as average with the bat while being a butcher in the field. At the end of 2014? MiLB: BP's top system in baseball (only the Cubs and Houston increased their standing by double digits during that time period. For those who'd like to give credit to picking 2nd, recall that Buxton was far from a lock at the time-especially for an organization flush with toolsy HS OFs and in desperate need of front line pitching). Potential Impact prospects up the middle, in the corners and on the mound-with ceiling and depth at each slot. MLB: Santana, Vargas and Arcia show promise (Pinto as well, if he can learn to call a game), Hughes and Gibson are actual major league pitchers, Dozier has GG caliber defense and an above-average bat at 2B and Plouffe is thoroughly average (in the best possible sense). The TL;DR? Ryan can point to organizational overhaul when he's asked why he should keep his job. The responsibility scope of Manager doesn't allow Gardy to do that.

[Deleted the Prior post as I realized that I somehow forgot something in the midst of all these words] I'd caution you not to confuse (or conflate) a search for accuracy with "defend[ing] the Twins payroll situation". Your initial statement was either confusingly worded (as I and others took a different meaning) or inaccurate, and rather than offering a defense of payroll, gil4 was pointing this out. What follows is less a defense of payroll and more an argument on arbitrary endpoints. You clarified that you meant current spending is lower than it was when the Twins first moved into Target Field. I disagree with the idea that Season 1 was the new stadium's equilibrium point or that it should be considered the "natural level" of things. Revenues decline, even when controlling for team performance, immediately after the first season in a new stadium. Think of it as driving your new car off the lot. I think it's substantially more informative to compare the last 5 years at the Metrodome (which involved a substantially more successful period) to the first 5 at Target Field. Twins Metrodome Average (05-09): $62,650,707.60 Twins Target Field Average: $95,761,233 (53% increase) Twins 2014 Target Field Payroll: $85,465,000 (36% increase) As you can see, even this season (after a "precipitous" drop in payroll) represents a substantial increase over the way things were at the Metrodome. Many will consider this too rosy, team-friendly or apologetic towards ownership. I contend looking at the behavior before the new revenue stream is simply a more useful comparison to determine how revenue is being used. As an aside, the trading away 3 years of one of (if not *the*) baseball's team-friendliest contracts in CF and a player 2 years away from sniffing arbitration is probably not the best argument to use when bemoaning the cheapness of a club-especially when the return was a Top 100 prospect, a former Top 100 prospect and recent Rookie of Year candidate who all contributed to strengthening a part of the system (competent young starters, and in 2 cases, power arms) that had been desolate for years. As for the others, Cuddyer seemed to have little interest in returning. Willingham and Doumit equaled the contract he received from Colorado. Morneau had substantial questions about his ability to recover anything resembling his 2010 form, and Mauer's own concussion issues made it clear that 1B was no longer automatically Morneau's spot. I've been thrilled to watch them rediscover their offense output in the friendly confines of Coors, but "expense" doesn't appear to have been the major factor in either decision. I'd comment the same seems to be true with Liriano who-based on the Twins having to trade in-division for a meager package as well as the one-year "prove it" deal he signed after-was far from "in demand" as '12 drew to a close and '13 began. Shelling out more guaranteed money for one player (and at a higher AAV) than I believe any local club has for an entire offseason (Parise & Suter, for instance, make less money over more years). Being the highest bidder for a major international free agent (which turned out catastrophically). Setting franchise records for FA Hitter and Pitcher contracts. If the Pohlads are focused on making money at the expense of all else-they're doing an absolutely terrible job at it. There have been a plethora of examples in recent years of teams making a concerted effort to pinch pennies at the expense of winning (given your inclusion of Span, Revere and deadline FA trades above, I'll use "winning" the way you seem to-which is regarding immediate success). Houston has torn down their roster at remarkable pace, the Red Sox had what can only be described as an epic shedding of salary 2 summers ago and the Cubs have sold off any veteran piece with something that resembles value during their rebuild. None of these teams, though, can match the Marlins. Can you imagine the response had the Twins gone out and signed Valverde, Bay and Lackey to massive, longterm deals coinciding with the opening of Target Field and then dealt them along with Mauer before the All-Star break? And that's without mentioning the SEC investigation into whether Loria literally defrauded the city during the stadium process (as opposed to the figurative defrauding the Star Tribune Comment Crew is sure the Pohlads engaged in). When it comes down to it-even if I found merit in your premise that the Twins don't care (or only vaguely care, in the way that I might care about character progression during a cinemax afterdark flick)-I think I'd be less troubled by the Profit-at-all-performance-costs strategy and more troubled by how terrible they are executing it.

I've got a friend who had a teacher assign him a book for one of his college courses and finally broke down and read it myself after listening to him for a couple of years. A Former VP at Pepsi went through and determined that the marginal value of each additional win varies from team-to-team (and from win-to-win). He put up a few segments at Hardball Times- http://www.hardballtimes.com/measuring-the-dollar-value-of-a-player-part-2/ and I think it's something to factor in to your thought exercise. Obviously the specific weights he gives each factor no longer apply, but it gives a more holistic view than "Attendance Gain + Average Ticket Price"... graduates from Napkin Math to ScratchPaper Math. For the topic as a whole, I do believe that the Twins have greater fiscal resources than the Royals did (do?)-both in the ability to keep homegrown stars long term (Mauer) and to make Free Agent signings that go beyond the 1 year deals(Hughes, Nolasco). For that reason, I don't think that the Royals serve as a good team to emulate. With their budget constraints and Dayton Moore's increasingly tenuous Job Security, making a splashy-or even midsized- FA move wasn't a possibility for them. The Twins are nearing a window where they'll be graduating 1 to 2 (or even 3) top 100 prospects every year and have legitimate arguments that they'll continue as a top 10 farm system for the remainder of the decade (Gordon and Thorpe still being in the system in 2019 would put them at 23 and 24 respectively-I certainly hope things don't turn out that way, but it's plausible). It's not a situation where they have to choose between relying on prospects and acquiring proven talent. Like the Red Sox and Rangers, they've got the capacity to do both... just a little more slanted towards "Prospect" and less towards "Payroll". Generally, those are the teams who have consistent success.

I'm sure many teams would be willing to part with an injury prone all-glove catcher who struggled mightily with his first taste of advanced pitching for the proper return. In the words of Kevin Goldstein at the time: "his perceived value was far greater than the reality" With that said, I would gladly offer anyone other than Perk from the bullpen for a similarly "tarnished" former top 100 prospect (a pitcher in the Trevor May vein, or an outfielder similar to Hicks). Trading Willingham and Suzuki becomes more difficult with the struggles of Arcia and Pinto-and I think avoiding the catastrophic collapses of recent Augusts and Septembers has more value than a couple of marginal prospects.

My discomfort comes from the idea, as I called out, that Cuellar is somehow not qualified for the role. People can read whatever they'd like into why people may disregard him. My own opinion is above. Why does any manager have an office? "I don't trust pitcher 1 tonight, Bobby. Put pitcher 2 in instead" seems like a conversation he may not want to have in front of the pitchers. I do imagine it's more difficult to speak candidly there.

I tend to get uncomfortable as this topic comes up, which it has fairly often. Is a coach from Venezuela going to really relate better to Sano (DR) or rosario (PR)? Or is national origin (and thus what you refer to as culture) less important than skin color? Would Hicks be better served with a black bench coach? If there was something to point to the Twins being uniquely inept at coaching across cultural lines, perhaps you may be onto something-but as it stands dismissing Cuellar seems overtly racial and without cause. I don't remember Ozzie being especially successful with Latino players (acknowledging that "latino" in common usage covers dozens of different cultures), nor Fredi or Edwin in Miami.

I'm not saying I expect Santana to start (or that I expect him to stay down)-I just think you're linking two unrelated things. Nunez' bat and theoretical ability to play the INF has value on a major league roster, regardless of who is starting. I guess I'm not seeing the compelling evidence that this means you can't swap Florimon and Santana the same way you'd have been able to without Nunez' presence, or why the Twins would have made this move now rather than anytime in the month prior or month after. That's fine though, we can agree to disagree . I was just wondering why you were so certain that this meant something with Santana.